ArticleSafety in extreme environments : people, risk and security2025
A CFD analysis of equipment fires in an underground development heading for improved auxiliary ventilation design.
Article in Safety in extreme environments : people, risk and security, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Abstract: This study investigates the intricacies of equipment fires in a blind development heading of an underground mine using computational fluid dynamics (CFD). A series of fire dynamic simulations (FDS) were conducted for various ventilation velocities in the main airway, and with different distance between the auxiliary ventilation duct outlet to the blind working face. The impacts of the ventilation velocity in the main airway, and separation distance between the duct outlet to the blind face on temperature distribution and smoke spread mechanism were investigated. The findings indicate that the distance of the auxiliary ventilation duct outlet to the working face has a strong impact on the smoke stratification beneath the airway ceiling. The high-velocity flow from the auxiliary duct leads to turbulent eddies characterized by high levels of fluctuating vorticity near the working face, and the extent of the turbulent region increases as the distance between the working face and the duct outlet increases. This implies that lesser distance between the duct outlet to the working face is safer to mitigate smoke dispersion due to fires in the blind face of an underground heading. Similarly, the ventilation velocity in the main airway was observed to influence the smoke back layering length although, the influence on fire smoke gas temperature in the blind heading was found to be negligible. The insight from this study will aid the future design and installation of auxiliary mine ventilation duct in the underground development heading with the aim of minimizing smoke dispersion and enhancing safe evacuation of personnel in the event of a fire emergency. Highlights: Numerical analysis of a large mining equipment fire is evaluated using CFDAuxiliary ventilation duct has a strong impact on fire-induce smoke stratificationHigh-velocity flow from auxiliary duct induces turbulent eddies near the blind faceTurbulent eddies prevent fire smoke stratification which hinders safe evacuation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.